When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states resisting DC with legislation on firearms and health care, they almost always miss, or ignore, what I consider to be some of the greatest and most effective state resistance to federal power - marijuana activism. Continue Reading

In a recent interview on Air America Radio, Ron Paul took a strong stand in support of the Constitution and State Sovereignty - by stating that laws and regulations of Marijuana should be on a state level.

“If California wants to legalize it, let ‘em legalize it,” Paul told host Richard Greene on Air America’s “Hollywood CLOUT!” program. Continue Reading

by Wyatt Buchanan, SF Chronicle Staff Writer

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that the time is right to debate legalizing marijuana for recreational use in California.

The governor’s comments were made as support grows nationwide for relaxing pot laws and only days after a poll found that for the first time a majority of California voters back legal marijuana. Also, a San Francisco legislator has proposed regulating and taxing marijuana to bring the state as much as $1.3 billion a year in extra revenue.

Schwarzenegger was cautious when answering a reporter’s question Tuesday about whether the state should regulate and tax the substance, saying it is not time to go that far.

But, he said: “I think it’s time for debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues - I’m always for an open debate on it.”

The governor said California should look to the experiences of other nations around the world in relaxing laws on marijuana.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has introduced a bill to regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which are barred by federal law.

California voters in 1996 legalized marijuana for medical use with permission from a physician.

Ammiano said he was pleased the governor is “open-minded” on the issue and added that he was sure the two could “hash it out.”

Under Ammiano’s proposal, the state would impose a $50-an-ounce levy on sales of marijuana, which would boost state revenues by about $1.3 billion a year, according to an analysis by the State Board of Equalization. Betty Yee of San Francisco, who chairs the Board of Equalization, supports the measure.

“This has never just been about money,” said Ammiano, who has long supported reforming marijuana laws. “It’s also about the failure of the war on drugs and implementing a more enlightened policy. I’ve always anticipated that there could be a perfect storm of political will and public support, and obviously the federal policies are leaning more toward states’ rights.”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

by Bob Egelko, SF Chronicle

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy. Continue Reading

Robert Sharpe, Policy Analyst for Common Sense for Drug Policy, makes the point pretty clear in this letter to the Sheboygan Press:

While there have been studies showing that marijuana can shrink cancerous tumors, medical marijuana is essentially a palliative drug.

If a doctor recommends marijuana to a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy and it helps them feel better, then it’s working. In the end, medical marijuana is a quality of life issue best left to patients and their doctors. Continue Reading

Back in ‘99, even George Bush himself was calling for an end to the war on medical marijuana users. It’s not something that’s pointed out too often these days, and thanks to Anthony Gregory at LewRockwell.com, we can all read these statements from Bush himself. Continue Reading

by Rep Ron Paul

K.K. Forss does not claim medical marijuana solves all his problems.  His pain from a ruptured disc in his neck is debilitating.  He is unable to go to work or to the First Baptist Church  he used to attend because of the pain and muscle spasms.  Taxpayers through Medicare spend over $18,000 a year on his various medications.

Half of those drugs are strong narcotics.  The other half address the various side-effects brought on by the first half, such as nausea, heartburn, heart palpitations, difficulty sleeping, and muscle spasms. Continue Reading

The unconstitutional drug war rages on - and on, and on.  Recently, Federal Agents raided a California small business and arrested three people for running a marijuana candy factory.

States rights have no bearing when thugs shut down businesses, destroy families, and throw people in jail. Continue Reading

The war on drugs continues unabated. As the New York Times recently reported:

Frustrated by government policy and inaction, a group of advocates for medical marijuana sued two federal health agencies on Wednesday over the assertion that smoking it has no medical benefit.

The group, Americans for Safe Access, a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, filed the lawsuit in Federal District Court, challenging the government’s position that marijuana, “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

Although the lawsuit is well-intentioned, it’s clearly misdirected. Whether or not marijuana has a medical benefit is not the issue; whether or not the war on drugs should exist at all is the issue.

The Drug War knows no bounds. The Tenth Amendment clearly limits the federal government to powers that are specifically listed in the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

But yet, national laws, including those that are definitively prohibited by the Tenth Amendment, are continually held to be superior to state and local laws; all to the detriment of your personal liberty.

The fact is that you have a right to do what you want with your own body. Self-medication, for example, is a right protected by the Ninth Amendment. More importantly, though, there is nothing listed in the constitution giving the federal government the power to prohibit people from using drugs or medicine.

Therefore, the federal government has no right to violate local drug laws or force you to change your personal choice. Doing so is in direct violation of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But, the Constitution be damned - that’s what the politicians are telling us!

In Murray Rothbard’s book, For a New Liberty, you can see the inherent problem with the drug war – it simply gives the federal government power over you in ways that no free person should want:

Propagandize against cigarettes [or marijuana] as much as you want, but leave the individual free to run his own life. Otherwise, we may as well outlaw all sorts of possible carcinogenic agents – including tight shoes, improperly fitting false teeth, excessive exposure to the sun, as well as excessive intake of ice cream, eggs, and butter which might lead to heart disease. And, if such prohibitions prove unenforceable, again the logic is to place people in cages so that they will receive the proper amount of sun, the correct diet, properly fitting shoes, and so on.

Once the government is given the power to limit the liberty of one group of people, it then has the power to limit the liberty of others – including you. If you approve of the government interfering with people’s rights to use whatever drugs they want, then you approve of politicians being able to decide what’s good for you as well. There is no stopping point once the government has the power to determine what is good or bad for you to put in your own body.

Thus, the drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of.

This is an abomination of everything that America is supposed to stand for. As long as this country continues the drug war, you are not free. At their root, then, those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.

In this ongoing drug war, you are always treated as a suspect and your neighborhood is much less safe. You are searched at airports and your bank accounts are spied on. While drug users who are no physical threat to anyone but themselves are put in jail, the prisons become more and more overcrowded, resulting in the early release of violent criminals on a regular basis. If you love your freedom and you want your city to be safer, this psychotic war on drugs must be ended – now.

Understandably, many Americans are afraid that ending the drug war will result in countless drug addicts, including children. In reality, though, that’s just what we have now! On top of it, we generally don’t even consider the people who are addicted to federally-approved drugs to be drug addicts. What’s going to be different – can our nation’s addiction to drugs get any worse?

According to a 2004 CDC report, almost one-half of Americans use at least one prescription drug. It should be obvious, then, that the drug war has done nothing to reduce Americans’ addiction to drugs – it’s simply controlled which drugs people use, and who can make a profit from them. It’s doubtful that legalizing all drugs could make things any worse, but even if it does, then so be it.

People will always do plenty of things that are bad for them, and there’s no reason to put them in prison for it. Think about the things you do that are bad for your own health – should the government outlaw those too?

People eat too much fast food and they forget to floss every day. They watch too much TV and they don’t count their calories. And, guess what? People swallow, snort, shoot and smoke drugs that are both legal and illegal – and it’s not going to stop. A free society just wouldn’t force you, under the threat of punishment, to be “good” to yourself all the time. That was the job of your parents - unless, of course, you want the feds to be your new “daddy.”

In all seriousness, though, if we are ever going to have a nation that respects the Bill of Rights, of which the Ninth and Tenth Amendments may be the most important, the DEA and the entire drug war must be eliminated.

If not, what’s going to be next? Orwellian telescreens in our homes and a state-mandated morning exercise routine? That would most assuredly keep the cost down on the coming national healthcare system.

Won’t that be nice?

Once again, federal thugs from the Drug Enforcement Administration targeted marijuana growers in Northern California. According to a report from the Modesto Bee:

Federal agents raided two south Modesto homes Wednesday, uncovering an indoor marijuana farm that may be linked to an Asian crime syndicate operating out of the Bay Area.

Federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents, Internal Revenue Service officers and Galt police served a search warrant at a two-story house in the 1700 block of Rancho Encantado Lane at 10:30 a.m. The house was next door to a day-care center.

That brings to 50 the number of houses that have been raided from Modesto to Sacramento that are believed to be connected to the crime ring, Taylor said.

The fact of the matter here is that people have an inalienable right to do what they want with their own bodies. And, more importantly, since the Constitution does not specifically authorize the federal government to prohibit drugs, actions such as these are in clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Federal drug laws (the Controlled Substance Act) ban the possession of marijuana as well as a number of other drugs, while the FDA continues to legalize other drugs made by corporations that have enormous political influence.

But, the essential question is this: If a simple federal law is all that was needed to ban marijuana, why did Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920’s require a constitutional amendment?

James Madison made it quite clear that the federal government would only be able to exercise the powers that were specifically delegated to it in the Constitution. In Federalist #45 he wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The Tenth Amendment gave Madison’s opinion the force of law, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

When the United States imposed a nationwide ban on the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol in 1919, a Constitutional Amendment was required. This is because the Constitution did not, and still does not today, give the federal government the power to prohibit alcohol. (or any other substance, for that matter) As we all know, this was eventually repealed. In 1933 another Constitutional Amendment was required to repeal the previous prohibition.

The federal government now argues that it is allowed to prohibit the possession of marijuana and other drugs, because they fall within the realm of interstate commerce. Obviously, this wasn’t the case back in 1919. So what changed? How could the Commerce Clause of the Constitution morph into something that would apply today?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states…” This “commerce clause” is the legal bedrock for all federal regulation of business activity that crosses state lines.

We must take note, the Commerce Clause itself was never meant by the Founders to be some sort of blank check for absolute control over anything and everything we do that might have some sort of influence on some sort of commercial activity. But, that distorted view is just what all three branches force us to accept today.

In reality, though, the economic purpose of Article I, Section 8 was almost exactly the opposite of what the government has been telling us since the FDR years.

The original meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states. It was written to ensure that States wouldn’t prohibit the free-flow of commerce from state to state through tariffs, taxes, quotas, and the like. The idea was to ensure that trade was made “regular.” Thus, it was designed to promote trade and not to restrict it.

Since the explicit language used in the Controlled Substances Act, just like economic regulation in most every other realm, prohibits the free flow of goods, it is therefore completely repugnant to the meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause.

Even the great centralizer Alexander Hamilton specifically noted in Federalist #17 that the Commerce Clause would have no effect on such matters:

The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction.

James Madison concurred in Federalist #42 that the commerce clause would “provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States.”

Thus, the Commerce Clause has been converted from a power to eliminate prohibitive trade barriers put up by states into all-encompassing police power over anything that the government tells us is “related” to commerce. Therefore, we vehemently reject this distorted use of the commerce clause to interfere with the right of the States and People to determine the legality of marijuana.

Since the commerce clause is not a valid argument for the increase of federal power, we must, then, ask that essential question once again. If all that was needed to ban alcohol was some legislation from Congress that would list it as a banned substance, then why did the government go through so much trouble with the Constitutional Amendments? Why is marijuana different in 2007 than alcohol was in 1919?

The answer is quite simple. It isn’t. Setting constitutional arguments against prohibition aside, the fact remains. To do something of this magnitude - something that the Constitution doesn’t authorize - would require a constitutional amendment. But, as per the norm, our politicians refuse to follow the rules that govern them. With the flick of a pen, they dictate what is good and what is bad. What is allowed and what is not.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2006), American taxpayers are now spending more than a billion dollars per year to incarcerate its own citizens for marijuana “violations.”

Sooner or later a new question will have to be asked amongst “We the People”: Does the federal government have the power under the Constitution to stop cities and states from legalizing marijuana?

The answer must be a resounding no!